Stephens v. State, 18S00-8808-CR-718
| Decision Date | 26 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 18S00-8808-CR-718,18S00-8808-CR-718 |
| Parties | Robert STEPHENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Jack Quirk, Muncie, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. and Louis E. Ransdell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in the conviction of appellant of Attempted Murder, a Class A felony, and Criminal Recklessness, a Class C felony. The trial judge merged the two convictions and sentenced appellant to thirty (30) years on the Attempted Murder conviction.
The facts are: Appellant and the victim were co-workers at Manor's Lounge in Muncie, Indiana. On the night of July 20, 1987, they had a few drinks together after they got off work. They then went to the home of a waitress with whom they worked, where they continued to drink. Sometime between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m., they returned to appellant's home and it was agreed that the victim would sleep there as he had to be at work early the next morning at the lounge, which was only a short distance away.
Up to this point, the testimony of appellant and the victim is substantially the same. The victim testified that he dozed off on the couch, and when he awoke, appellant was screaming at him, and hitting him. Appellant then put a gun against his temple, stuck the muzzle of the gun in his mouth, stepped back, and shot him in the neck. The wound the victim received paralyzed him for life. Appellant then started choking the victim, but when he saw blood on his hands, he suddenly stopped, went to the telephone, and called the 911 number for assistance.
Appellant's version of the occurrence was that while he was removing a handgun from his pants the weapon accidentally discharged striking the victim in the neck. He stated that when he perceived the victim had been wounded, he attempted to stop the blood flow from the victim's neck and then called for help.
Appellant claims he was denied effective counsel in that his counsel did not petition the court for a mental examination of appellant. Appellant's sister testified that she went to appellant's counsel before trial and told him that appellant had been diagnosed as a schizophrenic as a child and asked him to obtain appellant's medical records from Riley Hospital in Indianapolis. However, counsel told her that he had talked with appellant and found him to be quite rational. He felt that it would be a mistake to attempt to invoke the defense of insanity.
Appellant further bolsters his argument by stating that his testimony at trial was rambling and unresponsive at times to such an extent that it was a major contributing factor to his conviction.
The State takes the opposite position concerning the nature of appellant's testimony at trial. We have examined the record to determine the exact nature of appellant's testimony. We have found appellant's testimony to be quite rational. He testified that he had graduated from the twelfth grade and had approximately fifty hours of credit at Ball State University. He had held responsible positions for a number of years. He gives a very coherent account of his version of the occurrences which led to his conviction. The testimony of the victim and appellant placed the factual issues squarely before the jury for their determination. This Court will not invade the province of the jury and attempt to second-guess them as to who should be believed and who should not be believed when there is such conflict in the evidence. Alfaro v. State (1985), Ind., 478 N.E.2d 670. The testimony of the victim is sufficient to support the verdict of the jury in this case.
After appellant had testified, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Hoover v. State
-
Hawkins v. Auto-Owners (Mut.) Ins. Co.
...home. Stephens was subsequently convicted of attempted murder, and his conviction was affirmed by our Supreme Court. Stephens v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 280. Hawkins, as Lewis' guardian, brought suit against Stephens in the Delaware Superior Court alleging that Stephens negligently s......
-
Wilson v. State
...counsel is not deficient if his own observations do not convince him of the existence of a mental disease or defect. Stephens v. State (1989), Ind., 541 N.E.2d 280, 282. We do not see how trial counsel is deficient when making a similar observation here. Furthermore, Wilson fails to present......
-
Alvarado v. State
...behalf. One can always hypothesize that if a different defense were chosen, it might have been more successful. Stephens v. State, 541 N.E.2d 280, 282 (Ind.1989). A decision to assert a defense of insanity may as a practical matter amount to a concession that the defendant committed the act......